James Thomas Smith v. Eric Armel, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania adopted a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation and dismissed James Thomas Smith’s habeas petition. The court held that Smith’s pro se filing while represented by counsel was a legal nullity and that his unexhausted ineffective-assistance claim concerning initial PCRA counsel could not establish cause to excuse procedural default under Martinez v. Ryan.

Holdings

1. A pro se filing submitted by a state-court litigant who is represented by counsel is a legal nullity under Pennsylvania law and cannot present the merits of an issue or avoid federal habeas procedural default.
2. An ineffective-assistance claim asserted as cause for the procedural default of another claim is itself procedurally defaulted when it was not exhausted in state court, and such a default cannot excuse the underlying default.
3. Martinez v. Ryan does not excuse the procedural default at issue because the alleged ineffective assistance by initial PCRA counsel was itself unexhausted, and Martinez does not extend to attorney errors in appeals from initial-review collateral proceedings.
4. The report and recommendation was adopted as supplemented, respondents' motion to dismiss was granted, Smith's petition was dismissed, and a certificate of appealability was denied.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Smith's pro se motion filed in the Pennsylvania Superior Court while he was represented by counsel exhausted his claims or avoided procedural default.
2. Whether alleged ineffective assistance by initial PCRA counsel could serve as cause to excuse procedural default when that ineffectiveness claim was never properly exhausted in state court.
3. Whether alleged ineffective assistance by appellate PCRA counsel could excuse the procedural default under Martinez v. Ryan.
4. Whether the magistrate judge's report and recommendation should be adopted and the habeas petition dismissed.

Disposition

dismissed